Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-05-2015 - 5-e - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Public Hearing Process Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 11-05-2015 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 11-05-2015 - 5-e - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Public Hearing Process Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2015 10:00:02 AM
Creation date
10/30/2015 9:09:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/5/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5e
Document Relationships
2015-594 SOC of Proposed UDO Text Amendment to revise the existing public hearing process
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2015
Minutes 11-05-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
ORD-2015-031 Ordinance Amending the UDO Ordinance of Orange County and Planning Board Policies and Procedures
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7 55 <br /> 1 Perdita Holtz said she and other staff compiled it. <br /> 2 Commissioner Rich complimented the way the agenda was created and would love for <br /> 3 them to be created similarly going forward. <br /> 4 Commissioner Price asked if would be possible to expand the notification area in rural <br /> 5 areas to 1000 feet as opposed to 500 feet. <br /> 6 James Bryan said it is better to have one standard applicable to everyone. <br /> 7 Commissioner Price said in rural areas there would not be many people within 500 feet. <br /> 8 She asked if this could be reviewed to reach an alternate solution. <br /> 9 Perdita Holtz said the County has a growth management system map which designates <br /> 10 urban and rural areas of the County. She said it is possible that the map could be used as a <br /> 11 guideline for notification especially with legislative items. <br /> 12 Commissioner Price said she is speaking of legislative items only. <br /> 13 Commissioner Price said she would like the process streamlined. She asked if the <br /> 14 Planning Board was at the QPH and there was more public comment, but the item was still <br /> 15 ready to proceed, could the Board of County Commissioners as well as Planning Board vote <br /> 16 right then for legislative items. <br /> 17 Perdita Holtz said yes for legislative items. <br /> 18 James Bryan said for legislative items the Board of County Commissioners could decide <br /> 19 the night of the QPH or refer back to Planning Board. <br /> 20 Commissioner Price said if it was an easy item could the Board of County <br /> 21 Commissioners refer it to the Planning Board in the room, and have the Planning Board decide <br /> 22 right then rather than wait two months for them to come back with an answer. <br /> 23 James Bryan said this was a novel idea. He said it could be procedurally awkward. He <br /> 24 said the Board of County Commissioners could recess and then poll the Planning Board. <br /> 25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Planning Board members could speak as a part of <br /> 26 the QPH. <br /> 27 James Bryan said there could be a straw poll which is not binding. <br /> 28 Commissioner Price said this change could be a way to move the process along, while <br /> 29 still giving all involved the chance to hear all information before making a decision. <br /> 30 Commissioner Pelissier stressed the need to distinguish between which process is being <br /> 31 discussed: legislative versus quasi-judicial. She said she could only see Commissioner Price's <br /> 32 suggestion working with a non-controversial item. <br /> 33 Commissioner Pelissier said her concern now is deciding whether to have just the <br /> 34 Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair present or to require a full quorum since it has been such <br /> 35 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members <br /> 36 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume <br /> 37 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not <br /> 38 attend. She said a quorum should not be required. <br /> 39 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to <br /> 40 the Board of County Commissioners (see below) were confusing. She said there should be a <br /> 41 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be <br /> 42 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public <br /> 43 comment was never allowed in these items. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 September 8, 2015 <br /> 46 <br /> 47 To the Orange County Commissioners: <br /> 48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.